Are you certain that a Triac was used at Lugano? I am pretty sure that the drive system was via inverters, which are designed not to produce spikes.
pretty sure ...? inverters ...?
What are you saying? Did you exaggerate with wine?
Did you ever read the document ?
QuoteThe E-Cat's control apparatus consists of a three-phase TRIAC power regulator, driven by a programmable microcontroller
At least read the Report at page 3 before to write this stuff. Not looking good, is it?
Display MoreNo, i don't.
I am fairly new on this forum so don't know what you have been stating in the past.
But I understand that there are a lot of possibilities to introduce possible errors. Some you mention here, other errors which I found myself are not mentioned, but would have had only a minor impact on the outcome of a COP calculation.
Also at least one of your mentioned error's, the bandwidth-limited true power meter. I disagree with since I did a Fourier analyses of the power pulses to calculate the effect of the limited bandwidth of the PCE 830 and can state that it had no influence.
But despite all possible errors I still find it strange that IH did not use it's resources to bring those error sources to light and we all therefore must keep guessing what they are.
For the Lugano experiment, where we have a lot of data indeed that would not work. I was giving options for the IH measured COP=9 where all are open because we have no other data.
If you refer to the Ferrara tests then there are two different tests, with different possible likely errors. There is in that case no very obvious culprit, but the fact that input power measurement was not properly documented in the report makes it an obvious candidate. We'd need to revisit each test separately if you are interested. You need also to note that these were done by Rossi himself with Levi, so not independent. We now know that Lugano was done by Rossi with Fulvio, one of who was there the whole time, with the Profs making flying visits. I'd guess the checks were even less stringent for the earlier experiment.
Ferrara is Rossi best set of experiments. A half-way decent report without obvious gotchas and apparently (though not actually) independent. But, given the whole succession of demos with known gotchas previously and after, and the lack of independence at Ferrara, that does not mean a lot.
I suspect the earlier poster's suggestion is correct that "reactor no. 6" and "reactor no. 9" have been mixed up with "9X COP" and that the apparent COP for the reactor without fuel was not necessarily 9 (although presumably above 1).
The scenario here is that Rossi/Fulvio provide Vaughn with reactors, a complex test setup, and instructions on how to run the tests. Vaughn is certainly capable of following these instructions, but not of knowing whether (for example) power measurement is correct or wrong.
All we know is that in this way a COP of 9 was measured. Not, as I've pointed out, surprising.
We also know that a reactor showing Rossi-type COP (I'm not sure whether it is confirmed this was COP=9) was run in a test with a whole load of other reactors, all showing the same high COP. One of these reactors was however a control, with no fuel. From which TD, without any tech knowledge, could deduce that Rossi's test setup measures an electric heater as having whatever high COP (perhaps 9, but I'm not certain this has been confirmed) was measured.
Now: in what way is that difficult to understand?
@THH: May be you know that a COP of 9 was measured. In reality we (outside planet IH) have no report, even not of the "low quality" Lugano like style, thus we can't draw any conclusions. A deposition in a court DOCK is not a scientific report. Or will you tell us, that the people you believe in have any education to do such tests???
We know the IR output power method Rossi and IH were using, following Lugano, overestimated output power by 3X (or more at higher temperatures).
We know that AR always overestimates his powers... The famous demo with a small amount of steam speaks words. But If we correct the wrong emissivity of Lugano with the correct one we still get a reasonable COP. Thus I simply will never believe any word Vaugham wrote, because he easily could misread which power cable was bound to the tricky wrong clamp...
I see that you can't withdraw from the temptation to only write black&white statements. That's disqualifying you as a member of an academic staff.
When will we see your first post, where you will ask IH to give us a report or make better tests with qualified personal?
bdw: Don't tell us that Murray is/was qualified to do such tests... He was a manager for more than 10 years...
But despite all possible errors I still find it strange that IH did not use it's resources to bring those error sources to light and we all therefore must keep guessing what they are.
From the start IH have been pretty quiet and on the down-low. They've released two public statements, and Darden has given a talk at an ICCF conference and an interview or two. I doubt that IH would seek to justify to the public claims made in transcripts made for the court case.
If you consider Dewey Weaver part of IH, IH been pretty active in the forums. But I consider it more likely that Dewey is simply advocating for his friend Darden on his own initiative and not acting at IH's request.
Display More@THH: May be you know that a COP of 9 was measured. In reality we (outside planet IH) have no report, even not of the "low quality" Lugano like style, thus we can't draw any conclusions. A deposition in a court DOCK is not a scientific report. Or will you tell us, that the people you believe in have any education to do such tests???
We know that AR always overestimates his powers... The famous demo with a small amount of steam speaks words. But If we correct the wrong emissivity of Lugano with the correct one we still get a reasonable COP. Thus I simply will never believe any word Vaugham wrote, because he easily could misread which power cable was bound to the tricky wrong clamp...
I see that you can't withdraw from the temptation to only write black&white statements. That's disqualifying you as a member of an academic staff.
When will we see your first post, where you will ask IH to give us a report or make better tests with qualified personal?
bdw: Don't tell us that Murray is/was qualified to do such tests... He was a manager for more than 10 years...
I don't really understand your point here, other than to insult me as is traditional on this specific thread.
I'm not claiming IH have a valid measurement of COP=9. Nor are they. They now believe that early measurement, mentioned in sworn evidence under penalty of perjury, was invalid.
They have provided evidence that a control reactor gave the same high COP, in the same experimental setup overseen (I believe) by Fulvio, as active reactors. The point is that this was double-blind. They did not know that one reactor was a control, or which one it was. That is pretty powerful evidence that this measurement setup does not work and gives spurious high COP results when in fact COP=1. If you argue that they cannot know that from the sequence of events they describe please enumerate the points in your case more carefully because it is convincing to me, unless they are perjuring themselves. In which case doubtless Fulvio etc would say that.
Why should I ask them to deliver measurement reports etc? They have, they say, been trying to get Rossi's stuff to work for more than a year with every motivation (those $billion notes Cassarini took from a meeting of plans, if all panned out) to get it to work and no success beyond some initial illusory positives based on what was obviously Rossi-inspired measurement setups.
My argument here is that what they say makes perfect sense, and explains the sum total of facts much better than any of the anti-IH fantasies I've heard.
Please cancel my nick from blog.
What's with this new trend for suicide-by-cop?
First Mills (H), then MrSelfSustain, and now Ahlfors. Quit the amateur dramatics and just stop posting guys! (if that's what you really want).
Reversed clamp
All these silly researchers are so unlucky... every single time they set an experiment up, they always get one of the clamps the wrong way round!!! Every single time! (Despite the odd-one-out looking really strange, and them having to rotate their wrist awkwardly to place it). What are the chances of that?!
I suspect the earlier poster's suggestion is correct that "reactor no. 6" and "reactor no. 9" have been mixed up with "9X COP" and that the apparent COP on the reactor without fuel was not necessarily 9 (although presumably above 1).
Yes, this gets conflated with another vignette however where they early on measured COP=9.
Are you certain that a Triac was used at Lugano? I am pretty sure that the drive system was via inverters, which are designed not to produce spikes.
The controller shown in Lugano (red box) was a COMPACT FUSION SCR power controller. (see http://ccipower.com/product-selector )
But in any case the current through a SCR or bipolar Triac is restricted by it's load, in that case the resistive heater element and the resistance of the connecting wires.
This resistance prevents large current spikes to occur .
Both the wires and the heater coils have also some inductance which restricts somewhat the rate at which the current rises to it's final value.
The problem with scr/triac circuits is when you switch the current off. The rapid change in current together with the inductances causes voltage spikes to occur (Not current spikes). If the energy which was stored in those inductances is high enough, it can destroy your scr or triac. Thus preventive measures such as snubber circuits or transient suppressurs are often used to prevent the destruction of those devices
Display MoreWhat's with this new trend for suicide-by-cop?
First Mills (H), then MrSelfSustain, and now Ahlfors. Quit the amateur dramatics and just stop posting guys! (if that's what you really want).
All these silly researchers are so unlucky... every single time they set an experiment up, they always get one of the clamps the wrong way round!!! Every single time! (Despite the odd-one-out looking really strange, and them having to rotate their wrist awkwardly to place it). What are the chances of that?!
Zeuss.
I do wish that, even on this thread, when trying to comment on my posts, you would do so using correct argument. It is no fun when your points are so easily eliminated.
I've never claimed they have a reversed clamp every single time. I noted one X3 error on output we know Levi went on using - and presumably told IH was Ok, for a long long time.
We have only one noted case of COP=9, and I've given you 4 different options for getting there. So we have either no reversed clamps (if they used inadvertently one of the other methods) or one reversed clamp error one time.
What perhaps confused you is that given no information on these tests, if there is a 3 phase power measurement, we have to note reversed clamp, every time, as one possible error until this is ruled out.
Do you see the difference?
The controller shown in Lugano (red box) was a COMPACT FUSION SCR power controller. (see http://ccipower.com/product-selector )
But in any case the current through a SCR or bipolar Triac is restricted by it's load, in that case the resistive heater element and the resistance of the connecting wires.
This resistance prevents large current spikes to occur .
Both the wires and the heater coils have also some inductance which restricts somewhat the rate at which the current rises to it's final value.
The problem with scr/triac circuits is when you switch the current off. The rapid change in current together with the inductances causes voltage spikes to occur (Not current spikes). If the energy which was stored in those inductances is high enough, it can destroy your scr or triac. Thus preventive measures such as snubber circuits or transient suppressurs are often used to prevent the destruction of those devices
Yes I agree SCR vs TRIAC. I'm not bothered. And I understand and agree with the back emf issue.
In this case for Lugano I agree the coil inductance is highish, we know something about the coil pitch (maybe 2-5mm) and diameter (a bit less than 2cm). The coil resistance is low and the actual spike current can still be 100s of amps depending on whether the box drives direct from mains voltage, or has a step-down transformer first. So while I sort of agree with what you say I'd take issue with prevents large spikes. We'd need to qualify what is meant by large - certainly 200A seems large to me. For mis-measurement in any case what matters is the crest ratio not the size of the spikes per se, and this can be arbitrarily high on such a chopped waveform in the general case where we know little about the coil configuartion - it is just that you get lower output powers at higher crest ratios for given heater resistance and output voltage. Both heater resistance, inductance, and output voltage can be adjusted by Rossi (though maybe voltage adjustment needs a different transformer in the box). So it is difficult to limit these errors without information.
For 2cm diameter, 50 turns, 10cm length, 2mm dia wire I get ball park around 5uH.
At 200V (possible output voltage) we have 40A/us dI/dt. That is enough for a 1000A spike 40us long or 0.25% of one half cycle at 50Hz. So for example a crest factor of order 100 likes plausible driving such a coil. This is very hand wavy, but shows that even with the Lugano coils you can drive short current spikes.
Do you see the difference?
All I see is an endless stream of visitors saying "is that clamp supposed to be that way round"?
This person Alhfors (not sure of sex and it seems to matter to the mods) said to cancel the nick' . We know MrSS came back and may will again with evenalongerusernamethanlasttime.
Hank is one of the few that really has stopped posting before he left he was complaining about me356 (and also MrSS) if I remember correctly. And even though MFMP has made some progress with me356 I would think that Hank would still be complaining (and IMO rightfully so).
All I see is an endless stream of visitors saying "is that clamp supposed to be that way round"?
OK. So - in the spirit of this thread - whose fault is that?
I think you are just reacting to what people say instead of thinking for yourself!
All these silly researchers are so unlucky... every single time they set an experiment up, they always get one of the clamps the wrong way round!!! Every single time! (Despite the odd-one-out looking really strange, and them having to rotate their wrist awkwardly to place it). What are the chances of that?!
Well, since you asked, there's exactly a 75% chance that 3 randomly applied current clamps will yield the 1/3 power error. (To avoid the error, the clamps must be applied in the same polarity: so there's two ways to do that +++ and ---, and there are 2^3 possible combinations, with all the remaining combinations producing the 1/3 error, yielding 6/8)
On JONP, in response to a comment, Rossi stated that 'AC has no pole - it's 'AC' after all". This indicates he's either profoundly ignorant about how AC works, or he's purposefully confusing the issue.
With Rossi, it's always hard to say, isn't it?
@THH Not quite sure about the meaning of your question, but i'll have ago at answering it: The person whose fault it is, is whoever awkwardly twisted their wrist to put the clamp on on backwards in the first place, then ignored it's weird appearance, then ignored everyone asking them if they are sure it's on right.
Have a think about both the ironic, and the illogical nature of your last sentence. 
Well, since you asked, there's exactly a 75% chance that 3 randomly applied current clamps will yield the 1/3 power error. (To avoid the error, the clamps must be applied in the same polarity: so there's two ways to do that +++ and ---, and there are 2^3 possible combinations, with all the remaining combinations producing the 1/3 error, yielding 6/8)
On JONP, in response to a comment Rossi stated that 'AC has no pole - it's 'AC' after all". This indicates he's either profoundly ignorant about how AC works, or he's purposefully confusing the issue.
With Rossi, it's always hard to say, isn't it?
Give Rossi credit. He had a way initially of getting COP=2 from average V & A measurement of chopped waveforms. Easily. It all worked fine.
Then Mats very publicly exposed this. Rossi however is inventive. He moves to 3 phase AC where we can see because AC does not have polarity Rossi will be getting a reliable X3 COP 75% of the time.
Not quite sure about the meaning of your question, but i'll have ago at answering it: The person whose fault it is, is whoever awkwardly twisted their wrist to put the clamp on on backwards in the first place, then ignored it's weird appearance, then ignored everyone asking them if they are sure it's on right.
Have a think about both the ironic, and the illogical nature of your last sentence.
There's nothing 'awkward' about clipping a clamp on a wire one way or the other. If the person clipping on the clamp thinks it doesn't matter, and they do this 1000 times (with three wires as in Rossi's set up), you can expect that they will get the wrong set up very close to 75% of the time, statistically.
The reason is that the only way to know which clamp application position is the 'correct' way, is to have knowledge about the wire you are clipping the clamp on. It's NOT the same, for instance, as attaching the red lead to positive and the black lead to negative, where the DC polarity is clearly color coded. Specifically, for reach of the three phases, you would need to both select the correct wire AND orient each clamp in the same way on the selected wires.
QuoteWell, since you asked, there's exactly a 75% chance
I'd say there's a zero percent chance, unless performed by a small child, a total effing idiot, or someone in on the supposed scam.
QuoteThe reason is that the only way to know which clamp application position is the 'correct' way, is to have knowledge about the wire you are clipping the clamp
Sorry, not buying it... Just clip them all the same way round and don't overthink it.
QuoteOn JONP, in response to a comment Rossi stated that 'AC has no pole - it's 'AC' after all".
Thanks, I had forgotten about that hilarious episode. Ignore everything above!
Display MoreNot quite sure about the meaning of your question, but i'll have ago at answering it: The person whose fault it is, is whoever awkwardly twisted their wrist to put the clamp on on backwards in the first place, then ignored it's weird appearance, then ignored everyone asking them if they are sure it's on right.
Have a think about both the ironic, and the illogical nature of your last sentence.
I'd say there's a zero percent chance, unless performed by a small child, a total effing idiot, or someone in on the supposed scam.
Well, it would be Rossi or Fulvio who put it in like that, or who routed the wire in a weird way so the clamp looked fine (always possible).
And I doubt until Murray that Darden had any visitors familiar with 3 phase electrical measurement. It is pretty specialised, even for tech guys.
As for supposed scam - if you claim Rossi doing blatently stupid mis-measurements and claiming he is right is a scam - then Ok, Rossi is a scammer. As documented by Mats. All I'm saying is to expect the same again, especially since Rossi has said about this issue that which way round the clamps are does not matter. Does it not seem strange to you that Rossi has been using AC power meters for so long and not worked this one out?
